How Do Biodiversity and Culture Intersect

There is a common recognition around the world that the diversity of life involves both the living
forms (biological diversity) and the world views and cosmologies of what life means (cultural
diversity) (Posey, 1999; Berkes et al., 2000; Maffi, 2001; Harmon, 2002). The importance of this
diversity is increasingly recognised, as is knowledge of this diversity, even in industrialised societies
where it is often heavily depleted (e.g. Mabey, 1997; Cocker & Mabey, 2005), and in urban areas
where people are often disconnected from their traditional natural resource base (Cocks & Dold 2000,
2004, 2006; Wiersum & Shackleton 2006). However the division commonly made between nature
and culture is not universal, and, in many cases, is a product of modern industrialised thought shaped
by our need to control, or ‘manage’ nature (Berkes, 2008).

University of Essex, 2University of Cambridge, 3University of Manitoba, 4University of Florida, 5Equilibrium,

Plenary paper for Conference Sustaining Cultural and Biological Diversity In a Rapidly Changing World:Lessons for Global Policy. Organized by American Museum of Natural Historys Center for Biodiversity andConservation, IUCN-The World Conservation Union/Theme on Culture and Conservation, and Terralingua.April 2-5th 2008

IntroductionThere is a common recognition around the world that the diversity of life involves both the livingforms (biological diversity) and the world views and cosmologies of what life means (culturaldiversity) (Posey, 1999; Berkes et al., 2000; Maffi, 2001; Harmon, 2002). The importance of thisdiversity is increasingly recognised, as is knowledge of this diversity, even in industrialised societieswhere it is often heavily depleted (e.g. Mabey, 1997; Cocker & Mabey, 2005), and in urban areaswhere people are often disconnected from their traditional natural resource base (Cocks & Dold 2000,2004, 2006; Wiersum & Shackleton 2006). However the division commonly made between natureand culture is not universal, and, in many cases, is a product of modern industrialised thought shapedby our need to control, or manage nature (Berkes, 2008).

1. Why do Cultural Diversity and Biological Diversity Matter?

Our conceptualisations of the relationship between human societies and nature have historicallyshaped the way in which we see the world and our actions towards it. Berkes and Folke (2002)suggest that distinctions between social and natural systems are somewhat artificial and arbitrary.Traditional societies have, after all, interacted with biological diversity through adaptive and coevolutionary processes for thousands of generations (Bale, 1994; Norgaard, 1994; Denevan, 2001;Toledo, 2001; Maffi, 2001; Gunderson & Holling, 2002; Harmon, 2002; Heckenberger et al., 2007).Berkes and Folke (2002) suggest that the term social-ecological system helpfully refers to thisintegrated concept of humans and nature.A wide variety of sub-disciplines have emerged in recent years using many terms and definitions (seeBox 1 and Annex A). These fields provide a kaleidoscope of perspectives on the many interactionsbetween nature and culture, referring to historical, geopolitical, anthropological and resourcemanagement terms (Rapport, 2006). Some of these sub-disciplines are bridging fields that explorethe boundaries of different disciplines, particularly between the natural and social sciences (includingbiological, sociological, historical, economical and political sciences) to give rise to various possiblecombinations of theoretical assumptions, methods and applications (Berkes, 2004).One aim of this paper is to go beyond potentially divisive definitions and demonstrate that most ofthese fields are working largely towards the same ends. These are to formulate ideas on how toachieve a symbiotic relationship between biological and social systems in the hope of achieving asustainable future for humans and the rest of nature (Rapport, 2006). While it is recognised that crossand trans-disciplinary approaches are essential, at present there are no generally accepted andrecognised methodologies for achieving this relationship (Somerville and Rapport, 2000). At the same

time, all sub-disciplines have the potential to contribute to our understanding of the interactionsbetween nature and culture. However, by being fragmented, they may lead to a lack of coordinationand disconnection between the advancement of scientific knowledge and the development of localimplementation as well as national and international policies drawn up to sustain what is left of ouronce enormous cultural and biological patrimony.Box 1: Selection of sub-disciplinary fields concerned with intersection of nature and cultureEthnobotanyAnthropology of natureEnthnoecologyBiocultural diversityEthnolinguisticsAgricultural sustainabilityEthnoscienceCommons studiesHistorical ecologyCultural anthropologyHuman ecologyCultural landscape ecologyHuman geographyDevelopment studiesIndigenous knowledgeDeep ecologyIntercultural educationEcofeminismLandscape ecologyEcological anthropologyNature conservationEcological designNature society theoryEcological economicsPolitical ecologyEcosystem healthResilienceEnvironmental anthropologySocial-ecological interdependent systemsEnvironmental educationSustainability scienceEnvironmental ethics and lawSymbolic ecologyEnvironmental historySystems ecologyEnvironmental sociologyEthnobiologyNote: see Annex A for definitions of each of these terms

This paper seeks to explore how biological and cultural diversity intersect and how global policycould use this intersection as the basis for a dual approach to conservation in our rapidly changingworld, thus reducing the gap between science and policy in practice (Kates et al., 2001; Clark andDickson, 2003). In order to do this, it is imperative to understand not only the dynamics by whichhuman activities shape the natural environment, but also how environmental changes shape humanbehaviours and well-being (Rapport & Singh, 2006). As stated by Komiyama and Takeuchi (2006);Our common future depends critically upon preserving the life-giving functions of theEarths ecosystems, landscapes, and biosphere. To achieve this requires the deepening of ourunderstanding of the linkages between the global system (the planetary base for humansurvival), the social system (the political, economic, industrial, and other human-devisedstructures that provide the societal basis of human existence), and the human system (thesum total of all factors impacting the health of humans).1.1. The importance of nature and biological diversityBiological diversity is defined as the variation of life at the level of gene, species and ecosystem(CBD, 1992). Much has been written on the importance of biological diversity in terms of its intrinsicvalue, its anthropocentric uses (in terms of the goods and services it provides), its role in todayseconomic market and its inextricable interdependence with the resilience of the natural environment(Constanza et al., 1997; Gunderson & Holling, 2002; MEA, 2005).Ecosystem health, referring to the extent to which complex ecosystems maintain their function in theface of human disturbance, is an essential precondition to sustainable livelihoods, human health, andmany other social objectives, as reflected in the Millennium Development Goals (MEA, 2005;Rapport, 2006). Not only does biological diversity represent the product of thousands of years ofevolution and a vital component of human societys survival through to the present day (in terms of

healthy peoples, healthy communities and sustainable livelihoods), it also serves as an absorptivebarrier, providing protection from environmental shocks and stresses.1.2. The importance of cultural diversityIn the same way that biological diversity increases the resilience of natural systems, cultural diversityhas the capacity to increase the resilience of social systems. Culture can be defined in a myriad ofways, such as a set of practices, a network of institutions or a system of meanings. Cultural diversityhas been formally defined to comprise the variety of languages and ethnic groups present in the world(UNESCO/WWF/Terralingua, 2003). However, in practice, cultural systems contain a great dealmore, coding for the knowledge, practices, beliefs, worldviews, values, norms, identities, livelihoodsand social organisations of human societies. The maintenance of cultural diversity into the future, andthe knowledge, innovations and outlooks it contains increases the capacity of human systems to adaptand cope with change (Maffi, 1999; Gunderson & Holling, 2002; Harmon, 2002). Different cultures,though, value nature in different ways and have different connections with their natural environments.In the next section, we consider these links and discuss how they bridge the modernistconceptualisation of the separation of nature and culture, and the non-industrialised world perspectivethat nature and culture are closely intertwined and often indistinguishable.

2. The Convergence of Biological and Cultural Diversity

Nature and culture converge on many levels that span values, beliefs and norms to practices,livelihoods, knowledge and languages. As a result, there exists a mutual feedback between culturalsystems and the environment, with a shift in one often leading to a change in the other (Maffi &Woodley, 2007). For example, knowledge bases evolve with the ecosystems upon which they arebased and languages comprise words describing ecosystem components. If plants or animals are lostthen the words used to describe them are often lost from a language shortly after (though there issome question about which comes first see Zent, 2001), and this will change the way the naturalenvironment is shaped by the practices and livelihoods of those human communities. Nature providesthe setting in which cultural processes, activities and belief systems develop, all of which feedback toshape the local environment and its diversity. This section will look at four key bridges interlinkingnature with culture: beliefs and worldviews; livelihoods and practices; knowledge bases andlanguages; and norms and institutions. This paper will examine these connections in more depthamongst different human societies, drawing on examples from both developing and industrialisedcommunities.2.1 Humans place in nature: Beliefs, meanings and worldviewsCulture can be understood and described as systems of meaning, the way in which people interpret theworld around them (Geertz, 1973). These meanings and interpretations are perhaps the most diversein their linkage to the natural world, with the most conspicuous links often observable withintraditional resource-dependent communities. Not only do these communities interact with biologicaldiversity on a daily basis, but their values, knowledge and perceptions are strongly centred on nature.It has been suggested that the difference in cultural worldviews and cosmologies of nature betweenindustrialised and resource-dependent (or subsistence-oriented) communities stems from a differencein need and purpose (Milton, 1998; Berkes, 2004). Whereas many indigenous and traditionalcommunities regard nature as a force managing them (e.g. through droughts or famines), manyindustrialised communities strive to achieve the opposite and assert their dominance in managingnature. Thus the former will view themselves as interdependent components of nature, fluctuatingwith its rhythms, whereas the latter will view themselves as separate from nature, dislocated from itsfluctuations and so independent of its evolution. Of course, human communities cannot be dividedneatly into these two positions, but they do form a spectrum along which the different relationshipshuman societies form with nature exist. With the coming challenges of climate change and peak oil, it

is conceivable that those whose industrialised livelihoods appear somewhat resource-independent mayhave to undergo substantial changes in the near future.Another manifestation of different interpretations of our relationship with nature comes from attitudeswithin faiths. The three large monotheistic faiths arising from the Middle East (Judaism, Christianityand Islam) have in the past taught that humans have dominion over nature whereas faiths such asHinduism and Buddhism stress the inter-relationships between humans and the rest of nature. Areinterpretation of the meaning of dominion in this context is quietly being undertaken amongst manyfaith groups.Milton has discussed this issue in some depth, and has suggested that some human communities dofeel a sense of oneness with nature. This can exist in both a weak and strong sense. To have a weaksense of oneness with nature is to adopt the worldview that humans are separate from nature, but thattheir relationship is a reciprocal one based on respect, caring and sharing. However, to have a strongsense of oneness with nature is to not recognise a distinction between nature and culture. Such peopleand cultures view themselves and other environmental components with which they interact asbelonging to the same continuous holistic system. This is often depicted in artistic impressions ofnature amongst tribal and traditional communities. They acknowledge relationships with non-humanentities that inhabit the system, such as plants, animals, spirits and gods, but not with nature as such,as this connection is so intrinsic that it goes unspoken and almost unrecognised (Milton, 1998).This oneness with nature is likely to have evolved from a continuous and direct dependence uponnature (Milton, 1998; Berkes, 2004). Such dependent relationships are more often depicted throughactions rather than words and, thus, often taken for granted in everyday lives. This makes it hard toidentify and articulate a specific role for biological diversity (Milton, 1998). For instance the Denegroups of the Western Subarctic use the term nd to describe the land; however this has a deepermeaning to the Dene. It not only describes the land, but also conveys the interrelations between allecosystem components (biotic and abiotic) based on the perception that they all have a life and a spirit(Berkes, 2001).This inclusive view of nature, however, is not universal, and indeed many cultures have an exclusiveview of nature, contributing to cultural diversity. Ellen (1996) proposed that three definitions ofnature exist in the modern industrialised cosmos: nature as a category of things; nature as space thatis not human; and nature as inner essence (Milton, 1998). Some believe that modernist views havegone beyond viewing nature and culture as two separate entities, but instead view them as opposingentities whose interaction generally leads to one or the other being damaged in some way.Whereas many traditional communities fail to differentiate between nature and culture, manymodernist societies perceive them as separate, and even opposing, entities. E.O. Wilson has, however,conjectured that all humans, no matter their culture, have an innate connection with nature based onour common histories as hunter-gatherers. This is termed the Biophilia Hypothesis and may explainwhy this connection is more conspicuous today in communities that retain this direct dependenceupon nature (Kellert & Wilson, 1993). In some traditional communities, natural elements are thoughtto be akin to humans and are respected as such. Therefore many traditional cultures base their viewsof nature on spiritual beliefs and worldviews, whereas industrialised cultures tend to base their beliefson science and the teachings of formal education (humans as a biological species), although manymodern people in industrialised countries still acknowledge a spiritual or affective relationship withnature and the outdoors (Milton, 1999), and all traditional cultures incorporate substantial bodies ofempirically derived ethnoscience.. Evidence also shows that exposure to nature has a positive effecton mental health (Pretty, 2004, 2007; Pretty et al., 2005, 2006, 2007)Goodins green theory of value (1992) suggests that all humans want to see some sense and pattern totheir lives, and nature provides the backdrop against which this can occur. It enables human lives tobe set in a larger context and explains why non-human nature is often thought of as sacred (Milton,1999). This is demonstrated in the designation of protected areas and nature reserves, sacred groves in4

India, tambu in Papua New Guinea and other faith-based or sacred designations of the land (Berkes,2004). All of these reflect a cultural belief in the value of nature and this is reflected in peoplesactions and behaviours towards those environments. However, this sacredness reflects a belief in themutual independence of humans and nature and the need to protect non-human nature from humaninfluence in the future (Milton, 1999). Many protected areas (national parks or reserves) are, or atleast contain, sacred natural sites (Dudley et al., 2006); places that are important because of their linkwith a faith or faiths. They are often selected as protected areas precisely because local communitieshave set them aside for spiritual reasons and maintained high natural values as a result (whichparadoxically sometimes suffer as a result of incorporation into a state-run reserve).Although many cultural views exist, it is clear that belief systems about nature around the world havediverged depending on how people use it (Milton, 1998; Berkes, 2004). Even in apparently nonresource dependent communities, biological diversity is still highly valued as one of the worlds mostcritical resources (CBD, 1992; Veitayaki, 1997). We will now go on to discuss the linkages betweencultural and biological diversity in terms of environmental activities and practices, many of whichstem from diverse worldviews of human-nature interactions (Turner & Berkes, 2006).2.2 Managing nature: Livelihoods, practices and resource management systemsAs a set of practices or ways of doing things, cultures shape biodiversity through the direct selectionof plants and animals and the reworking of whole landscapes (Sauer, 1965). Such landscapes havebeen described as anthropogenic nature, their composition, be it of introduced species, agriculturalmonocultures or genetically modified crops, a reflection of local culture and a product of humanhistory including the context in which individuals and groups live their lives (Milton, 1999). Adams(1996) described nature as a cultural archive, a record of human endeavour and husbandry(Milton, 1999). For this reason, many anthropologists perceive landscapes to be a product of theconnection between people and place; they are spaces to which people feel they have a relationshipand of which they hold memories.The widespread role of cultural activities in shaping nature has led to non-human or near-pristinenature being viewed as sacred. However, growing archaeological and ethnographic knowledge ofdiverse cultures has demonstrated that many habitats previously thought to be pristine are in fact anemergent property of resource dependent livelihood practices. For instance, North Americanlandscapes have been sustained through periodic burning (Cronon, 1983) and grazing regimes inmountain Asia have encouraged shrub-to-forest conversion (Brower & Dennis, 1998). Theselandscapes, once thought to be free from human influence, are neither identical nor similar toconditions that would occur in the absence of people. Instead, they represent a diversity of ecologicalprofiles shaped by localised cultural practices. Thus few landscapes are considered to be non-humantoday, most having been shaped either directly or indirectly by human activities, except at leasthistorically perhaps for the extremes of the poles or the depths of the oceans, although global climatechange is bringing this assertion into question. This has been now acknowledged with the naming ofour geological era as the anthropocene.This has led, amongst other things, to a sharp split in attitudes to the concept of wilderness(Callicott & Nelson, 1998). Wilderness societies are passionate advocates of its values (often withouta clear idea of the role of traditional societies in shaping the ecology), while for traditional societiesthe word often causes anger because of its implication that traditional societies were irrelevant.Traditional human cultures may have a subtler ecological footprint, but they are still nonethelesssignificant in moulding the landscape. This is a product of their continued resource dependence.Unlike industrialised countries, where cultures have recently tended to shape and manipulate thelandscape without restraint, urbanisation being but one product of this dominance, many indigenousand traditional cultures have developed livelihood practices that inevitably alter the landscape, but doso with care so as to ensure natural resource security into the future. Such ethics-based practices havebeen key to the survival of many developing communities and their landscapes to the present day5

(Callicott & Nelson, 1998). Recognising this, many scientists and policy-makers alike nowacknowledge the role that traditional cultural practices could play in biodiversity conservation in thefuture, particularly in little known ecosystems and in the light of the failures of state-imposedmanagement schemes in many parts of the world (CBD, 1992; Veitayaki, 1997).This form of resource management by which local communities and their established practices play acentral role is often termed community-based conservation. It is the process by which biodiversity isprotected by, for and with the local community, and although the practices vary greatly betweensocieties, it is based on the coexistence of culture and nature and derives from holistic systems thatcombine harvesting with resource management (Western and Wright, 1994; Turner & Berkes, 2006).Key to the success of community-based conservation is thought to be the adaptive feedbacks that existwithin the system, enabling rapid observation and adaptation to change. That is not to say that alllivelihood activities developed within traditional communities lead to biodiverse outcomes, but thatwithin many traditional cultures there exist practices and skills, developed from worldviews andlivelihoods, that sustainably manage ecological integrity more successfully than modern industrialisedsocieties have managed (Nepstad et al., 2006; Turner & Berkes, 2006). Thus, the loss of one means aconcomitant loss of the other.2.3 Knowledge about nature: Knowledge bases and languagesIf diverse cultural practices and worldviews are central to the management of biological diversity,then the key linkage between nature and culture is the knowledge upon which these practices andworldviews are based (Posey, 1999: Maffi 2001, 2005; Harmon, 2002). How people know the worldgoverns behaviours, understandings and values that shape human interactions with nature. Berkes(2001) describes this as a knowledge-belief-practice complex that is key to linking nature withculture.Knowledge of nature, traditional knowledge, indigenous knowledge, local ecological knowledge orecoliteracy is accumulated within a society and transferred through cultural modes of transmission,such as stories and narratives, and observation as people travel over the landscape (Pilgrim et al.,2007, 2008a). It comprises a compilation of observations and understandings contained within socialmemory that try to make sense of the way the world behaves, and societies use this collectiveknowledge to guide their actions towards the natural world. As a body of knowledge, it is rarelywritten down, enabling this cultural resource to remain dynamic and current, adapting with theecosystem upon which it is based (Berkes, 2001; Turner & Berkes, 2006).The importance of traditional ecological knowledge to resource management has been well describedin recent years, re-emphasising the inter-dependence of biological and cultural diversity. Culturalunderstandings of the environment not only give rise to sustainable management practices, but also toknowledge of species requirements, ecosystem dynamics, sustainable harvesting levels and ecologicalinteractions (Pilgrim et al., 2007, 2008a). If sustained through stories, ceremonies and discourse, thisculturally-ingrained knowledge can enable people to live within the constraints of their environmentin the long-term, without the need for catastrophic learning in the event of major resource depletion(Turner & Berkes, 2006). Central to this is the ability to learn from and adapt to incremental changesin the environment efficiently and effectively.This knowledge capital is perceived by some to be a cultural insurance for the future(UNESCO/WWF/Terralingua, 2003). It provides a source of creativity and innovation, as well as arange of solutions for coping with current and future challenges, all contained within a diversity oflanguages. Languages encode knowledge bases in a way that is often non-translatable into otherlanguages but nonetheless bridges its speakers to their landscape inextricably. In this way, languagecan be described as a resource for nature (Maffi, 1998). As a result of this, a growing body ofliterature exists on the interlinkages between linguistic, cultural and biological diversity(UNESCO/WWF/Terralingua, 2003). However, diverse languages and knowledge bases arethreatened today by the dual erosion of biological and cultural diversity.6

2.4 Culture as institutions: Norms and regulations

In addition to ethics, values and environmental practices, ecological knowledge bases, if culturallyingrained, give rise to socially-embedded norms and institutions. These normative rule systemsgovern human interactions and behaviours towards the natural environment (Ostrom, 1990), and haveoften co-evolved to mutually sustain both people and nature. Such contextual systems of collectiveaction are intimately linked to the land upon which they are based and, subsequently, are enormouslydiverse. They often take the form of common property rule systems that govern the use of resourcesacross a wide range of contexts, from forests to fisheries. These rules define access rights andappropriate behaviours often known as tenure systems (Turner & Berkes, 2006). Where these arerobust, they maintain the productivity and diversity of socio-ecological systems without need for legalenforcement sanctions, as compliance is believed to be in the best interests of the community as awhole or the best guarantee of individual and family interests in the long term. Such strong, longevolved, normative institutions themselves demonstrate remarkable diversity (Ostrom, 2005), witheach differing institutional form in turn influencing the development of co-evolved ecological system,with unique ecological characteristics (Robbins, 1998).Just as the theoretical convergence of cultural and biological diversity has been realised, so has thephysical convergence. Many of the worlds core area of biodiversity are also core areas for culturaldiversity represented through the density of ethnic groups and linguistic diversity(UNESCO/WWF/Terralingua, 2003; Skutnabb-Kangas et al., 2003; Sutherland 2003). This is by nomeans a coincidence, as traditional peoples diversity of institutions, livelihoods, values, land tenureand resource management systems are likely to have contributed to biodiversity levels. Therefore, byoverlooking the role that culture has played and will play in shaping nature, many scientists andpolicy makers overlook perhaps the greatest variable in the biodiversity equation. To consider naturewithout culture is tantamount to considering genotypes without phenotypes in the evolution of thegenetic make-up of a species, since there are few, if any, places on earth where either exists inisolation.Human cultures build around and attribute meaning to natural systems and processes in various ways,including cosmologies, worldviews, and religious and spiritual beliefs (Berkes, 2008). Theseunderstandings fundamentally govern both individual and collective actions towards nature,connecting knowledge and understandings with behaviour. How we know the world, therefore,governs our behaviour and practices that, in turn, shape landscapes, which form a cultural archive ofhuman endeavours. Amidst a diversity of cultures comes a diversity of meanings, leading to adiversity of actions, providing an array of biodiversity outcomes. This nature-culture continuum orinteraction has existed through the past and into the present, and is therefore likely to be sustained inthe future. The next section goes on to discuss the future of this dichotomy including mutual threatsand drivers of change.

3. Common Threats and Drivers

There has been an unparalleled shift towards landscape monocultures and human monocultures inrecent history, and many drivers causing this shift derive from common threats and pressures. It hasbeen suggested that many of these pressures have evolved from capitalist economies that stress nonstop progress and economic growth. These include a shift in consumption patterns, even in traditionalsocieties who interact with the capitalist economy, the globalisation of food systems (Berkes, 2001),and the commodification of natural resources. These drivers are reinforced by pressures ofassimilation, attempting to integrate minority cultures into dominant society, and urbanisation, and areat their most damaging when they lead to rapid and unanticipated periods of socio-economic change,which jeopardises peoples and ecosystems resilience or ability to withstand disturbance.

Traditional societies are also being suppressed by culturally-inappropriate education systems, oftenbased around an industrialised model of education, and the loss of linguistic diversity, subsequentlyeroding ecological knowledge bases. Increased deforestation, unsustainable agricultural productionand land tenure arrangements resulting from market interests are significant drivers of change,threatening or altogether dismissing culturally-embedded ownership and management practices.Limited market opportunities are causing livelihood diversification away from traditional resourcebased livelihood activities and towards environmentally-disconnected activities and cultures (Pilgrimet al., 2008b). There are, however, concerns that commodification of subsistence resources can lead tomore rapid destruction. The dominance of modern healthcare systems is also threatening the longterm interdependencies between nature and culture in many traditional societies.One of the most rapid drivers of change includes extreme natural events, particularly when coupledwith anthropogenic stressors (Rapport & Whitford, 1999). Tools used in resource management alsocreate common drivers and threats, such as exclusive policies (e.g. some nature-reserves or stateimposed management systems). A lack of transboundary cooperation and geopolitical instabilitythreatens global diversity, as do weak institutions and a lack of resources, particularly whendeveloping management strategies in developing countries. Amplifying this is the widespreadencroachment of traditional lands in search of rapid economic returns, particularly in the current fuelcrisis. Combined, these threats are paving the way to the homogenization of cultures and landscapesas demonstrated by assessments of the state of global and sub-global environments and culturalsystems (Maffi, 2001; MEA, 2005; Rapport, 2006; Pretty et al., 2007).

4. Key ConsequencesAs well as the homogenisation of landscapes, these common drivers are likely to have destructivehealth outcomes, particularly for young people if they spend less time in nature. Time spent directlyexperiencing and interacting with nature (a problematic term to define) has been shown to improvepsychological health and well-being, as well as increase physical activity levels (Pretty, 2004, 2007;Pretty et al., 2005, 2006, 2007). Spending less time in nature subsequently comes at a cost to health. Itcan also create an intrinsic disconnection with nature, leading to feelings of biophobia and a fear ofthe outdoors, perceiving it to be a wild and unfamiliar environment. Feelings of estrangement createan inability to care for and connect with nature, as cultural worldviews, beliefs and narratives losetheir meaning and context. From this extinction of experience (Nabhan & St Antoine, 1993; Pyle,2003) may evolve a lost generation, disconnected to any place in particular and unable to feel theinnate relationships with nature that E.O. Wilson suggested are within us all (Kellert & Wilson, 1993),also described as nature-deficit disorder (Louv, 2004).A further dimension is important: theconnection between human health and ecosystem function. The degradation of ecosystems with itsattendant issues of food security, spread of human pathogens, newly emerging and resurginginfectious diseases, psychological ills, is a major cause of illness today (Rapport et al., 1998; Rapoort& Lee, 2003; Rapport & Mergler, 2004).The rate of disconnection with nature, particularly amongst young people in industrialisedcommunities, is likely to be amplified by the growing virtualisation of nature through television andcomputer screens. For some children, these virtual encounters may be their only experience of nature,but many naturalists question whether these encounters can ever create the same bond that comesfrom directly experiencing an animal or ecosystem first-hand (Pyle, 2001, 2003).The combination of these economic and political drivers has led to global climate change and otherenvironmental threats including overexploitation and habitat destruction. This has led the world intowhat has been described as the sixth great extinction period. It has been said that species are currentlybeing lost at a rate that exceeds the extinction of the dinosaurs (McNeely & Scherr, 2001; Pretty,2002; UNESCO/WWF/Terralingua, 2003). Although current rates of extinction are widely disputed, itis certain that many of the threats listed in the last section are contributing to biodiversity loss acrossthe world. This in turn is eroding the resilience of socio-ecological systems, particularly in resource8

dependent societies, where food security is lacking and environmental conditions are unpredictable, asthey become less well-adapted and more vulnerable to change.In addition to biological monocultures, these threats are paving the way to cultural monocultures, as aresult of cultural extinctions caused by assimilation, language loss and knowledge loss (Posey, 1999;Maffi, 2001). Rural communities are migrating to urban areas, cultural knowledge transmissionbetween generations is declining, oral knowledge is being replaced with written knowledge just asclassrooms are replacing direct experience, and traditional livelihoods are being replaced by modernoccupations, all at the expense of cultural diversity and the diversity of global knowledge bases. Thiscomes at a cost to human societies as a decline in knowledge causes a decline in the possible solutionsthat humanity holds to future global challenges.In a similar way, the combined loss of biodiversity and ecological knowledge has implications forhuman health in the future, as we stand to lose the opportunistic uses and future potential of species,for instance in curing human diseases or feeding growing populations. With this loss of knowledge,we are subsequently losing the adaptive management systems embedded in traditional cultures thathave sustained natural resource pools through to the present day and may be a key tool in the future ofglobal biodiversity protection. With the realisation of the linkages between nature and culture, theirmutual threats and parallel losses, the need for a dual approach to the conservation of biological andcultural diversity has recently been acknowledged in the Millennium Development Goals (MEA,2005). However, policy responses to this paradigm have been slow to emerge.

5. Responses: Policies and Projects

The role of and need for effective policies in biodiversity protection has long been understood,however the importance of cultural protection policies is only just emerging. We suggest that sincemany common drivers exist between biological and cultural diversity and their existence is soinherently linked, policy responses should effectively target both in a new dual conservationapproach. There are examples of policies emerging in this light, although efforts often remainfragmented, localised and small-scale.Locally, efforts include local recovery projects, revitalisation schemes such as outpost and huntersupport programs, culturally-appropriate education schemes, and language revitalisation. Otherapproaches include the revival of culturally-appropriate healthcare systems, the protection and carefulcommercialisation of traditional food systems (e.g. Royal Greenland), and the greening of businesses.Larger-scale movements that have contributed to the dual protection of biological and culturaldiversity include the Fair-trade movement and the shift towards education for planetary citizenship.Land rights are being recognised as human rights as the integral relationship between nature andculture is realised. Investment into community-based conservation and the dissemination of power tograss-roots initiatives and institutions has increased, strengthening the mechanisms that favour socioenvironmental sustainability. Recent years have also seen the emergence of a huge number ofecotourism schemes, both small and large scale, although some of these amount to little more thangreenwash.Perhaps most representative of these movements is the emergence of international policies whichfavour the dual protection of biological and cultural diversity (CBD, 1992), and internationalrecognition of the links between biodiversity and cultural diversity is reflected in the program of workof IUCN/CEESP and UNESCO, and in UNEPs flagship report, the Global Environment Assessment[the 4th edition (2007) includes the topic of biodiversity and culture: Maffi and Woodley 2007]. Thisdefines biodiversity as also incorporating human cultural diversity, which can be affected by thesame drivers as biodiversity, and which has impacts on the diversity of genes, other species, andecosystems(p.160). Nonetheless, a great deal still needs to be done in the international arena tostrengthen this movement and to ensure policies are filtered down to grass-roots communities. It haseven been suggested that payment mechanisms should be put in place to reward traditional societies9

for the diversity of environmental goods and services (the full functioning of ecosystems) their waysof life provide.One important consequence has been a dramatic reshaping of the way in which protected areas areconceived. Responses have manifested in both formal and informal conservation practices. There is anincreasing recognition of the importance of so-called Community Conserved Areas placesdeliberately managed by local communities in ways that also support high levels of biodiversity butwhich usually have no official protected status (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2003). More formally,there is now widespread recognition of cultural landscapes as something worthy of protection(category V protected areas of IUCN) where the interaction of humans and nature over time hasproduced a particular set of natural and cultural values (Phillips, 2004). Emerging partnershipsbetween faith groups and conservation organisations present another powerful opportunity.Furthermore, under agreements of the CBD, all protected areas should be established with the priorinformed consent of local communities and policies of self-government and co-management of suchareas are becoming more common.Thus a diversity of policy options exist to pave the way towards the dual protection of nature andculture. However, to conserve global diversity effectively, policy efforts need to be internationallydriven, large scale, geographically targeted, multi-level and inclusive. For instance, policiesemphasising political empowerment, self-governance and territorial control at the grass-roots levelhave the potential to provide a solid platform from which communities can play a central role inbiodiversity conservation at the same time as retaining their own cultural distinctiveness andconnectedness to the land (Fisher, 1994; Colchester, 2000; Schwartzman et al., 2000; Peres andZimmerman, 2001; Heckenberger, 2004; ISA, 2006; Athayde et al., 2007).

6. Key QuestionsIn order to support this new direction in policy, we suggest ten key questions need to be addressed:Persuasion and Policies1. How can governments and societies be persuaded that maintaining and improving bothcultural and biological diversity can be in their interests?2. What are the best examples of enabling and effective national and international policies thatallow development of new approaches by grass-roots communities and their sharing withothers?3. What are the best approaches to take when traditions change, and when cultures and culturaltraditions evolve and adapt?Barriers to Rights4. What are the barriers to governments adopting and strengthening human rights declarationsand land rights policies for all of their own peoples?Revitalisation Projects5. What are the most effective recovery or revitalisation projects that can protect the culturesand values of both indigenous peoples and post-industrialised societies?6. What are the best internal and external incentives for sustaining cultural and biologicaldiversity? Can the benefits of existing capitals of cultural and biological diversity bemaximised in terms of income streams (without commodifying nature)?10

Participation and Power

7. How can indigenous peoples best be empowered whilst maintaining their own culturalvalues? How should conservation efforts respond to the fact that the cultural values of naturevary from place to place and also over time?8. How can the promotion of increased participation by cultural minorities and a wider range ofpartners (eg responsible industry, faith groups, social action groups and youth) be achieved indifferent political decision-making processes?Changing Aspirations9. How can new aspirations be created for livelihoods and lifeways in all societies so as tochange the consumption patterns that threaten natures and cultures worldwide?Young People and Nature Disconnections10. How can younger generations be attracted back into contact with their local natures so as toprevent any further extinction of experience and the growing disconnection with nature?

The degree to which the diversity of the worlds ecosystems is linked to the diversity of its cultures isonly beginning to be understood. Ironically, it is precisely as our knowledge of this linkage isadvancing that these cultures are receding. In the absence of an extensive and sensitive accounting ofthe mutual influences and effective policies targeting these issues, endangered species, threatenedhabitats, dying languages and vast knowledge bases are being lost at rates that are orders of magnitudehigher than natural extinction rates. While conserving nature alongside human cultures presentsunique challenges (Dove et al., 2005; Robbins et al., 2006), any hope for saving biological diversity,or even recreating lost environments through restoration ecology, is predicated on a concomitanteffort to appreciate, protect, and respect cultural diversity.

Annex A: Definitions of disciplinary and sub-disciplinary terms

Anthropology of natureThe study of the nature-society interface or of the relationships of nature and culture (Descola & Palsson 1996;Franklin, 2002).Agricultural SustainabilityThe development of technologies that are effective for farmers, result in improvements and food productivityand do not have adverse effects on environmental goods and services (Pretty, 2002, 2007).Biocultural diversityAnalyzes the relationship between language, culture and the environment as distinct but closely and necessarilyrelated manifestations of the diversity of life on Earth (Skutnabb-kangas et al., 2003; Maffi, 2005).Cognitive anthropologyBuilding on work of ethnobotanists and ethnobiologists, has examined the structure and systematics of folkknowledge (Brush, 1993). Cognitive anthropology investigates cultural knowledge, knowledge which isembedded in words, stories, and in artifacts, and which is learned from and shared with other humans(D'Andrade, 1995).Commons StudiesFocus on the social and institutional bases of common property systems and the role of common propertyregimes in contributing to productive ecological dynamics and sustainable use in a variety of settings (Berkes etal., 1989).Cultural anthropologyThe investigation, usually through long term, intensive field studies, of the beliefs, knowledge, practices, modesof social organization and forms of communication of defined social groups (Ember & Ember, 2006).Cultural (LANDSCAPE) ecologyA branch of cultural anthropology and cultural geography that studies culture as the primary adaptivemechanism used by human societies to deal with, understand, give meaning to, and generally cope with theirenvironment. Recent approaches have stressed the role of local knowledge in adapting to specific physicalconditions (Brush, 1993).Deep ecologyA branch of ecological philosophy (or ecosophy) that considers a holistic relationship between humans and thenatural world and espouses the intrinsic equality of all species (Naess, 1973, 1989).Descriptive historical particularismEmphasizes the uniqueness of each culture as demonstrated in its knowledge of plants, animals, astronomy, andweather (Brush, 1993).Development studiesMultidisciplinary social science branch that studies issues related to social and economic development (Kothari,2005).EcofeminismA philosophy and movement that joins feminist and ecological thinking to assert that the patriarchal structuresthat produce the domination and oppression of women are the same forces that lead to the domination of theenvironment (Sturgeon, 1997).Ecological anthropologyBasic scientific study, using a systems approach, of the links between humans and ecosystems, with a focus onhow culture mediates these interactions (Ellen, 1982; Salzmann and Attwood, 1996; Kottak, 1999).Environmental anthropologyApplied, cross-cultural study of relations between people and their environment over time and space(Townsend, 2000; Dove & Carpenter, 2008).Ecological design

15

Field of design that integrates human purposes into wider patterns, principles, and flows of the natural world(Van der Ryn & Cowan, 1996).Ecological economicsTransdisciplinary field that addresses relationships between ecosystems and economic systems in the broadestsense (Costanza 1992).Ecosystem healthA systematic approach to the preventive, diagnostic, and prognostic aspects of ecosystem management and tothe understanding of relationships between ecosystem health and human health (Rapport et al., 1999).Environmental educationThe organized teaching of the functioning of natural environments, and how human behavior and ecosystemscan be managed in order to contribute to environmental sustainably (Marsden, 1997).Environmental ethicsA branch of environmental philosophy that considers the ethical relationship between human beings and thenatural environment (Light and Rolston III, 2003).Environmental lawThe study and establishment of statutes, regulations, and common-law principles covering air pollution, waterpollution, hazardous waste, the wilderness, and endangered wildlife, at a variety of regional, national andinternational levels (Stookes, 2005).Environmental historyA branch of history that focuses on changes in the biological and physical environment; connections betweenmaterial change and changes in ideological representations of the environment; and the development ofgovernment regulation, law, and official policy (McNeil, 2003).Environmental sociologyStudy of the interactions between the environment and social organization and behavior (Dunlap and Catton1979, 1994; Gramling & Freudenburg, 1996)EthnobiologyStudy of culturally based biological and environmental knowledge and cultural perception of the natural world(Pieroni et al., 1995).EthnobotanyStudy of the complex relationship between plants and cultures (Cotton, 1996).EthnoecologyStudy of the way different groups of people in different locations understand their environment and theirrelationship with their environment (Nazarea, 2006).EthnolinguisticsEthnoscienceStudy of peoples perception of their surroundings, presumes no difference between indigenous knowledge andthe sciences of nature (Sanga & Ortelli, 2004)Historical ecologyTraces the ongoing dialectical relations between human acts and acts of nature, made manifest in landscape(Crumley 1994).Human ecologyMultidisciplinary study of the relationship between humans and their environment (Steiner, 2002)Intercultural educationEducational activitiy that focuses on the nature of culture, intercultural communication, and alternativeworldviews.

16

Landscape ecologyAn interdisciplinary field concerned with the study of the distribution and abundance of elements withinlandscapes, the origins of these elements, and their impacts on organisms and processes (Turner et al., 2001).Nature society theoryBranch of geography that studies the ways in which societal processes, shape, alter and transform the physicalenvironment and the resulting production of complex natural-soicail landscapes (Castree & Braun 2001).Political ecologyStudy of how political, economic, and social factors affect ecological processes and how ecologies can shapepolitical and economic possibilities (Robbins, 2004).Resilience (ecological)The adaptive capacity of an ecosystem to tolerate disturbance without collapsing into a qualitatively differentstate that is controlled by a different set of processes (Walker et al. 2004).Resilience (cultural)The adaptive capacity of a culture or cultural group to adjust to new conditions without losing structure andfunction resilience).Symbolic ecologyStudy which uses the nature-culture prism to make sense of myths, rituals, systems of classification, food andbody symbolism, and other aspects of social life (Descola & Palsson 1996).Social-ecological systems (SES)Study of the diverse relationships between an ecological system and one or more intricately linked socialsystems (Anderies et al., 2004; Walker et al., 2004).Sustainability scienceIntegrated, place-based study that seeks to understand the fundamental character of interactions between natureand society and to encourage those interactions along more sustainable trajectories (Kates et al., 2001; Clark &Dickson 2004).Systems ecology An approach to the study of ecology of organisms that focuses on interactions betweenbiological and ecological systems (Kitching, 1983).